HISTORY
REINTERPRETED"If they can get you asking
the wrong questions,
they don't have to worry about the answers."Thomas
Pynchon

by William B. Fox
last updated
Friday 24 Feb 2006

Finding a new pespective.
Merriwether Lewis' First Glimpse of the Rockies from First
Across the Continent by Noah Brooks

Overview

In "Critical Issues," we briefly looked
at some important trends that are wrecking America today. I explained
that I am not describing these issues simply to scare people or
add to their worries, but rather to help them accurately diagnose
the true nature of America's problems.

After making an accurate diagnosis, our task is then
to identify strategies for ourselves and the people we can influence
or join forces with in our local communities. Hopefully we can learn
how to lead more sane, healthy, prosperous, productive, and effective
lives while similtaneously increasing our defenses against misfortune.

In "Resolving Opposing Ideologies," we
looked at ways to ideologically untangle confusion over the true
nature of policy options.

Our Next Step:
Now we have to deal with another major stumbling block. We have
to examine how we interpret the past. This is very important, because
people usually make policy recommendations for the future based
upon the use of some kind of interpretation of past events. Dr.
Ralph Raico, in his Mises Institute lecture, emphasized this point
when he alluded to Winston Smith's job in the Ministry of Truth
in George Orville's novel 1984. Smith
scanned old newspapers for content that did not seem to fit Big
Brother's current policies and threw them down the memory hole.
"He who controls the past controls the present, and he who
controls the present controls the future."

In this section I want to provide an overview regarding the way
in which each perspective described in my "Resolving Opposing
Ideologies" section helps us to start asking some of the right
historical questions. These perspectives are summarized again as
follows:

a) Environmental top down (also
known as authoritarian modern liberalism, liberal fascism, and "neo-Jacobinism,"
all of which describes what America has become today)
b) Environmental bottom up (also known as contemporary
anarcho-libertarianism, this is a "sanitized," non-racialist,
non-ethnic version of the American Old Right)
c) Genetic top down (also known as authoritarian
racial nationalism, this includes German national socialism and
Zionism.)
d) Genetic bottom up (I call this libertarian racial
nationalism. This is also known as 19th century classical liberalism,
the American Old Right, and Paleo-Conservatism)
e) Mutualism vs. Parasitism (Productive practices
vs. criminality. The latter include political corruption, organized
crime, and subversion).

Environmental

Genetic

Top Down

Environmental
Top Down
(Authortarian
Modern Liberalism)
The current official view

Genetic
Top Down
(Authoritarian
Racial Nationalism)
What America supports in Israel

Environmental
Bottom Up
Anarcho-Libertarianism
Highly Selective Old Right

Genetic
Bottom Up
(Libertarian Racial Nationalism)
The real American Old Right
and English Yeoman Tradition

As a line of intellectual analysis, the "bottom up" racial
nationalist viewpoint shares all of the same general genetic-related
concerns of the "genetic top down" folks. However, like
the anarcho-libertarians they fear that centralized political, economic,
and even religious systems can easily become perverted, abused,
or prove otherwise prove inadequate. They look to assert their genetic
interests first and foremost on a grass roots level. This includes
strengthening the ethnic, cultural, and religious institutions that
directly support these interests. It also involves maintaining strong
local government and representative institutions. Whereas anarcho-libertarians
are focused upon avoiding the erosion of their individual liberties,
libertarian racial nationalists want all of that plus something
more. They are also focused upon a broader concept called popular
soverignty, which deals with the ability of a people on a grass
roots level to retain enough levers of power to determine their
own destiny by bolstering their will for individual liberty with
local community elements of cohesion, self-sufficiency, and self-governance.

Local tribalism is not necessarily a bad thing, although even that
can be carried to extremes, as pointed out by John Utley in "Tribes,
Veils, and Democracy."

The basic premise is very simple: we live in a predatory world,
and in order for people to defend their basic interests, they need
to not only be able to negotiate on their own behalf as individuals,
but also on a local group level. It is not enough to be bound by
abstract libertarian principles, since in the final analysis groups
get their way not only because of what they believe in, but what
they are willing to fight and risk their lives for. Therefore, we
usually need to include shared ethnic, racial, and cultural factors
into the group defensive equation to arouse enough fighting spirit
for a group to effectively defend its interests against other groups.

The history of America is about how whites originally arrived with
very little genetic and cultural distance. Originally this was not
such a bad thing. However, somewhere in the mid to late 1800's the
genetic and cultural distance increased beyond the point of no return,
so that the politics of shared physical anthropology shifted over
to the politics of greed, envy, and viciously dishonest liberal
minority coalition politics.

I would refer the reader to the background that I have already provided
regarding this perspective in my "Resolving Opposing Ideologies"
section. This was the core perspective of leading classical liberal
intellectual and political leaders in 19th century Europe and America.
I would include Thomas Jefferson, Henry C. Calhoun, Lord Acton,
and British Prime Minister William Ewert Gladstone in this category.

19th century classical liberals were explicitly pro-white
racialists. They sought to limit the power of government, while
strengthening local racial, ethnic, economic, and political institutions.
They promoted meritocracy in the place of special privilege. They
favored an internal focus on the peaceful development of science,
industry, entrepreneurship, and the accumulation of private property
in the place of war and imperialism, which they generally viewed
as potentially highly destructive of liberty and property rights.

The history of the Nordic and closely related Celtic peoples is
very rich in this area, going all the way back to ancient Greece
and Rome and even prehistoric times. Some obvious starting points
include looking at the history of grass roots political independence
and insurrectionary movements, the history of religious separatism,
and the history of grass roots radicalism in the English Common
Law.

It bears repeating a point I have made earlier, namely that when
it comes to defending individual liberty against tyranny, as a practical
matter it usually takes a lot more to establish justice than just
an aggrieved individual filing a complaint or publishing a letter
to the editor of a newspaper. The bad guys may have more financial
resources and my file unfounded counter charges to drag out the
legal process to harass and bankrupt the complainant (often referred
to as "legal terrorism" and "malicious prosecution.")
If unethical government officials are involved, they might arrest
an individual and even confiscate his property based upon ridiculuous
interpretations of the law.

Quite often innocent bystanders who observe this abuse may become
too scared to come to the aid of the oppressed individual, for fear
that they could become singled out next. People can be intimated
in hundreds of subtle ways that leave few fingerprints, ranging
from losing their jobs or getting harassed by tax agents.

Anarcho-libertarianism is great in theory, but as a practical matter
people usually require cohesive racial, ethnic, and religious networks
combined with access to private wealth to make a sustainable and
effective stand against tyranny. We can look at extreme historical
examples such as Cromwellian Roundheads, American revolutionary
soldiers, Scottish rebels, and early 20th century Irish Republican
Army soldiers and imagine the level of popular and psychological
support necessary to maintain their cause as they went hungry while
campaigning in the field or watched their comrades get their heads
blown off in battle.

This point should be common sense to most people, yet surprisingly
in recent decades we have seen certain writers with the John Birch
society and other rightist groups in America condemn racism and
ethnocentrism as a form of Marxist "collectivism," and
furthermore insist that ethno-racialism is "divisive"
in a multi-racial, multi-cultural society, and hence plays into
the hands of our enemies who seek to "divide and conquor"
us.

There are profound differences in the meanings of words such as
"being divided" and "being conquored" on the
one hand and "acheiving independence" and "asserting
popular soverignty" on the other hand. This merits some extended
explanation.

In the first case of "divide and conquor," our enemies
have the initiative and decide how they want to divide us and what
they want us to have left after they have conquored us. They may
decide to divide us along class, occupational, sexual preference,
or gender lines, but you can rest assured they will try to forcefully
integrate us along racial and ethnic lines to wipe out the most
potent, time-proven source of strength that we have.

In terms of being conquored, our enemies may make a few concessions
so that our chains do not become too uncomfortable. For example,
they may allow us to unite with some multi-racial rabble in a Marxist
labor union. They may also allow us to successfully fight campaigns
to achieve a dollar increase on middling wages. But do not hold
your breath, expecting that they will let either us or our kinsmen
get our hands on any of the real levers of power. They do not want
to see us develop a coherent ethno-racial religious mass movement
similar to the Polish union Solidarity in the 1980's that helped
bring down first the Polish government and then the Soviet Union.
They definitely do not want you to get our hands on any major national
media. Nor do they want us anywhere near their central bank operations.
Good luck fighting it out with their policemen in the cities or
their soldiers in the field.

When people "achieve independence" and "assert historical
soverignty," throughout history they tend to voluntarily group
themselves by race, religion, and ethnicity first and foremost before
any other category. Historically when they "assert popular
soverignty" they usually exercise control over certain levers
of power. This includes control of mass media, command of the military,
the power to create money, and the ability to enforce borders and
negotiate foreign treaties. These types of factors add up to "soverignty"
or the capacity of a people to determine their own destiny. Consciousness
of race, religion, and ethnicity are vital to give people the will
to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to determine their own
destiny.

Marxists tend to be rabid anti-racists and anti-nationalists, particularly
the international Trotskyite version, so Marxist "collectivism"
usually implies teaching people that it is right and proper to confiscate
other people's property and redistribute it among people who can
be easily mixed up by race and national origin. In contrast, racial
nationalists tend to be very respectful of property rights. In fact,
racial, ethnic,and heritage consciousness may comprise an intangible
form property rights. Racial nationalists are more interested in
defending these rights than attacking other people's property rights
like the Marxists. Therefore racial nationalism is in many ways
the exact opposite of Marxist collectivism.

Another nasty myth promulgated by certain phony patriots and irresponsible
anarcho-libertarians is this notion that "nationalism"
in general, and "racial nationalism" in particular, automatically
means instituting stifling protectionism and high taxes. This may
be true if we are talking about certain authoritarian, top down
versions of racial nationalism, such as German National Socialism
or Zionism. But then again, this also applies to environmental top
down neo-Jacobin and Marxist regimes as well, with authoritarian
big government serving as the common denominator in both cases.
However, this is not true if we are talking about limited government
in a libertarian racial nationalist environment. In fact, as a de
facto "genetic bottom up" libertarian racial nationalist
society in the early 1800's, led by men such as Thomas Jefferson
and Henry C. Calhoun, America enjoyed exceptionally low taxes and
protectionist tariff barriers by any historical standards.

Yet another myth promoted by phony patriots is this notion that
religious conservatism must mean Christian Zionism. In my "environmenal
vs. genetics" section, I discuss the concept of the natural
religion that has been a small but significant aspect of the American
radical right. Among whites, this relates to their indigenous Indo-European
religion that has very little if nothing to do with Christianity,
Jews, or the Middle East. I also talk about how some early Americans
such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were
Deists (if even that). Many Christian fundamentalists today do not
even view Deists as Christians, much less having anything to do
with Zionism. I personally think "religion" can include
the capacity to feel inspired to make a great sacrifice for ones
people based upon having a godlike perspective regarding their destiny.
It can also include having a deep concern for the welfare and survival
of ones people, even if one happens to be an atheist or agnostic
on a purely theological level. Last but not least, a number of Christians
on the right, such as Dr. David Duke, argue in books such as My
Awakening and Jewish Supremacism
that Christian Zionists are totally out to lunch even within the
context of an intelligent interpretation of the Bible.

Last, but not least, libertarian racial nationalism helps us understand
the theft of our language. Let us start with the very nature of
the deceptions commonly used by our politicians. Deception itself
is theft of the truth. Anti-racism is theft of racial identity and
cohesion. Affirmative action is theft of meritocracy. Racial integration
is the theft of the right of white self-determination. Political
correctness is theft of freedom of speech. Anti-discrimination is
the theft of the right to protect oneself against miscreants and
alien intruders. "Equality" is the theft of the tools
of grass roots economic nationalism that whites require to survive
as a distinct people and determine their own destiny.

Bottom line: America has elites in places like Washington D.C.
and New York City who have cleverly acquired outrageous wealth and
special privileges by taking more from Americans than they have
given back. Much of this has been done through the use of bullying
as well as theft by deception. They are scared of being found out
and have a tiger by the tail.

Asking the right questions:

As we look at the libertarian racial nationalist line of analysis,
which focuses upon grass roots sovereignty in a perpetual tug of
war against the forces of statism (authoritarian nationalism), ideological
imperialism (Jacobinism and Marxism being too prime examples), and
parasitic economic exploitation and consolidation (plutocracy and
other forms of monopolistic, anti-chivalrous, criminally-oriented
capitalism; for example see Populism vs. Plutocracy
by Willis Carto for excellent background on this topic as well as
profiles of American libertarian racial nationalist leaders), a
number of key questions come to mind. First, what are the raw elements
that give rise to "spontaneous order" (a Hayekian libertarian
term) on a grass roots level and provide the sinews in the muscle
of popular sovereignty? Secondly, how do we distinguish the real
substance of popular soverignty from all the smoke and mirrors games
that create false appearances and assurances of sovereignty? And
lastly, what are the latent viruses that can spring forth when we
let out guard down and highjack or destroy our popular soverignty?

As I mentioned in my "Reconciling Opposing Ideologies Section,"
early American history provides one of the best case study laboratories
in world history regarding grass roots soverignty issues. I mentioned
how when de Tocqueville visited America in the 1840's, he observed
that Americans handled almost everything on a community level and
had almost no government by European standards, with ten times fewer
bureaucrats per capita compared to France.

In his economic histories of early America, Dr. Murray Rothbard
underscores this theme by showing how American pioneers were perfectly
capable of spontaneously creating their own properous free market
economic systems without any central government regulation and direction
whatsoever. However, one point that the anarcho-libertarians underemphasize
is the importance of initiative, self-discipline, and competence
combined with natural forms of racial, ethnic, and cultural coherence
on a local community level to make a laissez faire political and
economic order really viable. As one reads American
Values Decline, which documents the sorry breakdown
in values in various areas of contemporary America, the disturbing
thought keeps creeping up "This dog don't hunt no more!"
even on a libertarian level.

The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, & the Triumphs
of Anglo-America by Kevin Phillips traces the critical
ethno-racial-religious bonds involved in the English Civil War,
American War of Independence, and the War Between the States. Many
historical episodes described by Phillips illustrate the importance
of homogeneous racial, ethnic, and religious ties in defense of
individual liberty as well as creating the foundation for local
community economic prosperity.

Before we can understand early American history, we have to rewind
the tape back to at least the English Civil War of the 1640-1650
era. The Parliamentarian cause during the English Civil War had
its hard core support in the heavily Puritan areas of eastern England.
This was the blondest, most Nordic/Anglo-Saxon Protestant area of
the British Isles. It was also very solidly middle class and hence
very grass roots and yeomanry in its values and sensibilities. The
area was also very entrepreneurial, experiencing a thriving sea
trade with the Netherlands and other European countries.

Religion also played a key role. Cromwell's New Model Army went
into battle singing psalms in what became the bloodiest war (on
a per capita basis) in English history. In addition, Cromwell instituted
grass roots meritocratic promotion in his citizen-soldier army that
added greatly to its effectiveness.

Whereas before the English Civil War the Royal Navy had become
weak, for example in the English Channel "Algerian pirates,
guided by English renegades, captured 466 English merchant vessels
between 1609 and 1616" (page 22), after Cromwell and his Puritans
took over, all forms of piracy were quickly eradicated in the English
Channel. In fact, both the British Navy and Army went on the offensive
became nearly invincible throughout Europe and other parts of the
world.

Kevin Phillips describes how eastern England, to include eastern
English place names, got grafted on to New England. Everything north
of the formerly Dutch New Amsterdam (New York) was solidly Anglo-Saxon
Puritan, so much so that anti-monarchist Cromwellian ideology never
really died out in the colonies the way it did in England. Furthermore,
it characterized the leadership strata that included the governor
of Massachusetts and the founder of America's oldest university
as well as the Salem Witch burners. According to Phillips (p. 32),
half of Harvard graduates between 1640 to 1650 went back to England
to fight with the Cromwellians.

I have also previously mentioned Dr. Ralph Raico's Mises Institute
lecture, where he notes that blood ties and a sense of rootedness
were very important in early America. From 1700 to the 1775, there
was relatively little immigration, and the American population increased
threefold from large families. In other words, having been in North
America for at least three generations, Americans really felt that
they lived on home turf. In addition, if a British soldier shot
an American, it was likely that lots of kinsman around the colonies
bled with him.

One can argue that the American War of Independence started out
as a continuation of the English Civil War. According to Phillips,
pages 106-107:

Dusty corners of libraries all over New England
contain old books with notes about American chaplains and officers,
about to march off to Canada or the siege of Boston, announcing
their political and religious genealogy as the great-grandson of
an officer under Cromwell or as a descendant of a minister who exhorted
the Puritan troops. Connecticut, in this respect, was more assertive
than Massachusetts, naming two ships in its Revolutionary state
navy for Cromwell...

By 1774, a pamphlet, The American Chronicle
of the Times, appeared in Boston with Oliver Cromwell
in full black battle armor on the cover. In its pages, Cromwell
accepted the challenge of liberating Massachusetts from the occupying
British troops under General Thomas Gage. One American historian,
Alfred Young, has suggested that Cromwell's memory, sent underground
generations earlier, burst forth again in the 1760s with the revival
of enthusiastic religion and a political crisis that replicated
the dramatis personae and plot of the Stuart era.

As 700 British troops marched deeper into the Massachusetts countryside
on that fateful day on April 19, 1775 to collect colonial munitions
stores in Concord, what they probably thought they saw was a quirky
rabble of hick farmers motivated at best to make a few peaceful
public gestures of discontent over taxation policies. What they
failed to see were long lines of flickering ghosts of Oliver's Cromwell's
New Model Army, dressed with buckled hats and musketeer boots and
holding pikes and blunderbusses, standing resolutely beside farmhouses,
split rail fences, and churches.

Once the shooting started at Lexington, the Minutemen waged a perfunctory,
fighting retreat. They fell back to Concord, where Minutemen continued
to hesitate and retreat as Redcoats started to come across North
Bridge. They certainly had good reason to continue hesitating and
retreating, since they were still British subjects. Shooting a British
soldier was legally considered every bit as criminal, murderous,
and insurrectionary back then as shooting an FBI or ATF agent at
a place like Waco, Texas or Ruby Ridge, Idaho woud be considered
today.

Adding to the tension, Americans by North Bridge saw smoke rise
over the tree tops from where British where burning supplies in
Concord. Many Americans thought the British had set the whole town
on fire.

After the British discharged a volley, an American commander turned
to his faltering Minute Men and yelled "For God's sake, fire!"
Another American commander echoed "In the name of God, fire!!!"

My educated guess is that these exhortations were Puritan codespeak
for "These soldiers of King George III are unspeakably evil
forces of tyranny no different than the royalist forces of Charles
I. Our fight for our rights is now every bit as holy and righteous
as that of our ancestors who served with Cromwell. English Civil
War II has now begun!!!"

We do know that immediately after these exhortations, Ralph Waldo
Emersons' "shot heard round the world" was fired. The
Minutemen ferociously counterattacked and drove the Brits off the
bridge. In fact, the Massachusetts countryside erupted into a hornet's
nest. The British troops were driven all the way back into Boston
in a running battle with 273 casualties. The insurrection very quickly
became a War of Independence that passed a point of no return.

Incidentally, there was also an interesting Nietzschean/Darwinian
angle that has also been overlooked by many leftist historians.
According to Theodore Roosevelt in The Winning of the
West, six months before Lexington and Concord, about
a eleven hundred American frontiersmen fought against a somewhat
smaller force of Indians in the wilderness near the Ohio River.
The ultimate aim of the Indians was to clear all Americans out of
the Ohio Valley area and keep Americans east of the Appalachians.
An Indian victory may have cemented
an alliance with the British, who had discouraged western settlement
by Americans beyond the Appalachians. The Battle of the Great Kanawha
(also known as the Battle
of Pleasant Point) ended up being a chaotic soldier's battle
without much command and control and with a considerable amount
of hand-to-hand combat with musket butts, hatchets, and knives.
Although Americans took twice as many casualites (by Roosevelt's
account), the Indians eventually retreated, sued for peace, and
surrendered much of their territory. Major portions of Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Ohio now lay open for settlement. According to Teddy
Roosevelt, Americans viewed this as a great victory and news spread
throughout the colonies. Americans had succeeded where Braddock's
grenadiers and Grant's Highlanders had failed during the French
and Indian War. This was no doubt a gigantic shot in the arm for
the fighting spirit of frontiersmen who hungered for territorial
gain and who also viewed British soldiers as relatively effete.
Some sources call this the real first battle of the Revolution,
since it was recognized as such by a 1906 Act of Congress.

In addition to looking at the elements of race, religion, ethnicity,
long term historical memory, and other factors that aid grass roots
cohesion in defense of liberty, we also need to examine how these
factors have come together in various episodes in American history
to express popular soverignty. This is an area where libertarian
racial nationalists part philosophical company with Teddy Roosevelt's
treatment of separatism in The Winning of the West.
Although Roosevelt was a racialist, he was also a hardcore authoritarian
nationalist. While President, he turned the office of the Presidency
into a cult of personality and promoted imperialism, even to the
extent of running roughshod over Congress in his foreign military
interventions. In the Winning of the West,
he is lukewarm to negative in his attitude toward Thomas Jefferson
and his Kentucky Resolution of 1798 that threatened secession by
Kentucky and Virginia over the Alien and Sedition Acts. He is generally
hostile to the rich history of American political separatism on
the frontier, always claiming that Unionism was the inevitable and
only way to go.

From a libertarain racial nationalist perspective, when certain
Kentuckians successfully petitioned to separate from Virginia and
then dragged their feet about joining the Union in 1792, when frontiersmen
created the autonomous, secessionist State
of Franklin in eastern Tennessee in 1784; when Virginia
and Kentucky threatened nullification in 1798 of the Alien and
Sedition Acts, when President Jefferson envisioned a parallel "Republic
of the Pacific" in the Northwest, when New England seriously
entertained secession at the Hartford
Convention of 1814, when South Carolina successfully challenged
Federal tarriff legislation in 1832; when certain Texans in their
Lone Star Republic dragged their feet about joining the Union, when
Mormons grabbed their guns to oppose Federal invasion during the
1840's during the abortive Mormon War, and when Calfornians rejected
the Lincoln's greenbacks dollars to keep their purely gold-based
money in the 1860's --the examples go on, but suffice to say that
all of these sorts of things were wonderful historical moments,
if nothing else to demonstrate magnificent grass roots spirit to
assert self-determination.

Perhaps fifty years from now history books will be re-written with
the attitude that the only sad part to all this history is that
nobody actually went all the way to create permanent separate countries
with their own currencies and own border policy. After all, if Thomas
Chittum is correct in Civil War II: The Coming Breakup
of America that America will inevitably fracture,
and furthermore if Hans Herman-Hoppe is corect in Democracy:
The God That Failed that smaller countries tend to
produce more liberty and prosperity, then why was it necessary for
America to take a one hundred and fifty year detour through an imperial
cycle to ultimately get there, to include disastrous experiments
with global imperialism, spendthrift invasive big government, and
forced racial integration and open borders?

We need to return to the question regarding how we distinguish the
appearances from the real stuff of effective popular soverignty.

Real vs de facto forms of soverienty

Like so many things, "soverignty" can be measured in
degrees along a spectrum.

At one extreme, one finds "postage stamp" countries in
places like Africa, the Carribean, and central America that have
all of the superficial symbols of soverignty, but none of the real
substance. They have their own borders, flag, national anthem, currency
notes, military, government offices, post offices and --oh yes--those
beautiful colorful stamps. However, looking behind the scenes, we
usually find on a social and economic level that the people are
relatively inefficient and disorganized by First World standards.
We also discover that things tend to be controlled economically
by mulitnational mining, agricultural, or other types of companies
whose top officers are typically First World citizens . If push
comes to shove, all it usually takes is a regimental landing team
of U.S. Marines to brutally clarify the real world irrelevance of
all the superficial symbols of national soverignty.

At the other extreme of the spectrum, we see the amazing historical
case of elite Jewish interests in the late 1800's who had almost
none of the external symbols of national soverignty, yet had already
become so powerful in European central banking that they were widely
acknowledged to be more powerful than many European monarchs. Even
without any of the symbols, the Jews remained stronger than steel
in terms of all the grass roots elements of soverignty that I have
already discussed, namely racial and ethnic consciousness and cohesion,
long historical memory, extensive kinship ties, religious identity,
mutual economic support, and myriad other "below the radar"
factors. We also see after World War II how these Jewish communities
were able to quickly parlay this stealth power into all the tangible
symbols of soveriegnty in the form of the Jewish state of Israel.
Today these symbols even include hundreds of nuclear weapons in
addition to massive conventional military forces.

A key problem for most Americans today is that the real substance
of their popular soverignty is being continaully eroded and gutted
out from under them with rising debt, loss of manufacturing infrastructure,
government invasion of civil liberties, forced racial integration,
and myriad other problems. Meanwhile, the national government continually
pumps up the external, superficial appearances of soverignty through
its spendthrift social programs and grandiose foreign military adventures.

De facto republican virtue vs. de facto "enemy
aliens."

As mentioned earlier, an important bedrock of populare soverignty
is the practice of republican virtue on an individual level.

Just as we have real and phony forms of popular soverignty, we
have real and phony forms of "citizenship" as well. If
we examine the fundamental ingredients of libertarian racial nationalism
and republican virtue, and then look at the exact opposite behavior,
we in essence wind up with a checklist for enemy alien
activity.

I think it is an interesting intellectual exercise to first create
a checklist of "enemy alien" behavior, then look at the
behavior of the neocons around Bush, the people who control national
media, and ask yourself how many would qualify. Perhaps many of
them are more "enemy alien" than the 140,000 Japanese
Americans who were put in concentration camps by FDR during World
War II.

Some hard thinking about where our problems really began

There are two radical lines of analysis that I find really interesting.
One is religious, and the other is poltical.

In regard to religion, in my "Resolving Opposing Ideologies"
I discuss the natural religion concept. I also talk about Wilmot
Robertson's discussion in The Dispossessed Majority
regarding how the Protestant Reformation was essentially an effort
to exercise grass roots religious popular soverignty on the part
of mostly Nordic peoples in the face of religious centrism and absolutism
elsewhere in Europe. Going a step further, we might consider how
Celts may have lost something valuable when Roman invaders systemmatically
killed off Druidic priests. Similarly, Nordic peoples lost something
when Christian ideological imperialists savagely repressed their
indigenous religion of Asatru. Unlike the Jews, Japanese, and other
peoples who have been able to adapt and modernize their indigenous
religions, the peoples of Northern Europe were wrongfully cheated
out of their indigenous religous heritage when they were forced
to submit to a universalistic Jewish-created religion.

I do not claim to know what the right approach is for a natural
religion anymore than to Christianity, but I do tend to buy into
the saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Therefore, the appropriate way to run a religious service involving
a natural religion would probably be to do it exactly the same time-tested
ways that services are performed in mainstream Christian churches
that make people feel spiritual, decent, respectable, dignified,
and otherwises comfortable. Just change a few of the symbols and
a little bit of the content of the sermons and theology, but otherwise
leave everything else exactly the same, to include the suits and
ties.

In his book Rascals in Paradise, James
Michener talks about how the black birders (slavers) of the 19th
century Pacific would target Polynesians who had been Christianized
first to try to use for slave labor before they would ever consider
stalking pagans, because the indigenous religionists usually always
put up greater resistance and were harder to program into servility.
The implications in terms of grass roots racial nationalism should
be obvious.

Incidentally, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans
by Dr. Hans Gunther discusses the noble philsophical structure that
got trampled upon by Christian aggressors, and Which
Way Western Man? by William Gayley Simpson examines
the flaws of Christian universalism and mysticism from the perspective
of a former American Christian minister and co-founder of the ACLU
who later turned into an unabashed Nietszchean.

As another aside, it is interesting how many of the old heroic archetypes
have ways of persisting in popular appeal. I think that jitterbug.com
writer Kristen Brennan has provided a fascinating online
analysis of the relationship between story elements of George
Lucas' Star Wars and Tolkien's Ring Series and indigenous Indo-European
mythology.

Radical political analysis

We need to ask what is so horribly wrong about our political system
that enables the Federal government to keep growing like a cancer
and allows it to keep robbing people of more soverignty at a local
level. Put another way, what tools of soverignty did Americans unwisely
give up at a local level that has unleashed the Federal Frankenstein?

What is really fascinating about this question is how, once we
start looking for "at risk" Federal behavior, we keep
going further and further back in American history to get at the
roots.

We must go back futher than the elite Jewish interests who helped
created the Federal Reserve in 1913, who surrounded Woodrow Wilson,
and dragged America into World War I, although this turned a horrible
trend into a terminal trend.

We must also go back further than the King Lincoln dictatorship
that brutally crushed states' rights during the War of Southern
Independence, although this certainly turned a bad but reversible
trend into a horrible trend.

It turns out that our backward searching investigative time machine
does not stop until we come to an abrupt, crashing halt right at
time zero, the very moment when the Constitution itself was being
drafted in 1787. It also turns out that all our concerns were well
known by a group of people called anti-Federalists at the time,
some of whom were amazing accurate in predicting what would happen
if their concerns were not heeded.

The anti-Federalists included Patrick Henry and George Mason. Many
historians also include Thomas Jefferson in this group as well.
Unfortunately he was overseas in France as America's ambassador
during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. While the anti-Federalists
were unsuccessful in blocking the new Constitution, they were successful
in demanding the Bill of Rights.

According to Dr. Murray Rothbard, most Americans have been seriously
misled by establishment historians about the true nature Articles
of Confederation. This was the original constitution of the United
States of America from 1775 until the Constitutional Convention
in 1787

Many Americans today are not even aware that under the Articles
of Confederation, America had ten Presidents of the United States
who served a one year term each. America's first President of the
United States was in fact Samuel Huntington, who served from 177_
to 17_ under the Articles of Confederation. America's first president
was not George Washintong, who served two four year terms under
the U.S. Constitutin of 1787 from 1788 to 1796.

Dr. Rothbard claimed that the anti-Federalists were right about
the Articles of Confederation, namely that there was nothing so
broke about the Articles that they needed to be fixed. The Articles
had held up well under periods of extreme stress. America had successfully
fought the greatest empire on earth. It had endured the hyperinflation
of the Continental currency to pay for a substantial portion of
the war. Then in the early 1780's, America experienced a sharp recession.
However, America had pulled through it and was on the economic mend
at the time of the Constitutional convention.

Dr. Rothbard claimed that the Federalists unfairly blamed the recession
on the Articles of Confederation, when in fact the recession was
the inevitable correction of economic distortions caused by inflationary
policies used to finance the war. This natural bust following an
artificial boom would have taken place under any system.

Apologists for the Federalists claim that they were frustrated because
only New York and Pennsylvania had paid off their full proportion
of the revolutionary war debt and financiers did not like foot-dragging
with other states. They felt frustrated dealing with states that
"might, maybe, sort of" deliver on their promises to provide
funds and troops for wars. They craved a "jump-how-high?"
relationship.

Dr. Rothbard claimed that the Federalists had a more sinister hidden
agenda, namely to pattern the U.S. Government off the more centralized
British government that Americans had just ejected. They wanted
a central bank that would keep America in perpetual debt to provide
steady business for the financial elite. They also wanted a strong
central governemnt that could engage in steady spending and have
the power to strong arm the people and the states to collect on
the debt. The main instigators behind this scheme were Alexander
Hamilton and James Madison.

Dr. Rothbard referred to Alexander Hamilton in his lectures as
"the Mephistophelean Character of the American Revolution."
Noah Webster, a contemporary nationalist, called him an "evil
genius." Hamilton's advocacy of a President for life, a
central bank, a standing professional army, and other authoritarian
measures hit a lot of libertarians nerves in his day as well as
today.

Hamilton excites quite a lot of speculation among American rightists
who believe that he was an ally of British central bankers. Among
other things, Hamilton defended Jews in his public life, and grew
up on the Carribbean Island of Nevis where there are some interesting
circumstantial Jewish connections involved in his background. He
went from having little means to acquiring wealth amazingly fast
in New York City. In regard to possible English connections, rightists
are quick to observe that Cromwell had let Jews back into England
following the English Civil War. He had approached the Jews of Amsterdam
to help finance the Parliamentary cause. As a Puritan, Cromwell
viewed Jews as some kind of righteous "People of the Book"
rather than as low cunning aliens. Once back inside England (they
had been ejected by Edward I in 1290), Jews used their capital to
switch political sides and intermarry with English aristocrats who
had sided with Charles I against Cromwell and had fallen into financial
ruin. They started to play an increasing role behind the scenes,
to include setting up the Bank of England, which remains Britain's
privately owned central bank. There is some interesting speculation
that they helped warp British mercantilist policy in ways that incited
American rebellion. Whether this is true or not, their incredible
international financial manipulations through the Rothschilds and
other elite Jewish families during the Napoleonic era are well documented
and admitted by many Jewish sources.

According to Dr. Rothbard, the American Revolution was fundamentally
a libertarian revolution. Most Americans were happy with the greater
decentralization granted under the Articles of Confederation. Knowing
this, the Federalists used some dirty tricks to organize their Constitutional
convention. Among other things, they used their control of post
offices to hold up correspondence between anti-Federalists to delay
their ability to organize opposition. They also misrepresented their
convention as an effort to amend the Articles of Confederation rather
than replace it, and kept the proceedings secret. Last, but not
least, they used "anti-Federalists" as a propagandistic
label for their opposition. The anti-Federalists were in reality
the true federalists, because they wanted to keep a genuine balance
of power between the states and a weak central government. In actuality,
the so-called "Federalists" such as Alexander Hamilton
and James Madison were in fact authoritarian statists, if not crypto
fascists.

There is an excellent book titled The Constitution
of the United States: Its Sources and Applications
by Thomas James Norton that analyzes the 1787 Constitution line
by line, and compares many lines with provisions in the Articles
of Confederation. However, before we get to that level of minutae,
I think that it is important to stand back and ask a very simple
philosophical question.

The simple question goes as follows. Which would be better in the
long run, to have North America divided into two large countries
such as the United States and Canada as it is today, or to have
North America divided into sixty or more countries? If you agree
with Hans Herman-Hoppe that being divided into sixty or more countries
would have been better in the long run, or if you agree with Thomas
Chittum's Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America
that fragmentation in this direction is now inevitable, then the
greater degree of decentralization in the Articles of Confederation
was a good thing.

One might also consider the genetic viewpoint, namely that people
of shared race, ethnicity, language, and culture tend to want to
naturally cooperate in shared emergencies and engage in free trade
with each other even if they live across national borders, so why
"force it" with an authoritarian government? Their shared
genetics will tend to band them together anyway when the time comes
without the need for coercive, centrist state structures that might
turn into tyranny.

We might also make an analogy with Dr. Rothbard's lecture on union
dynamics. It may be a wonderful thing for workers to exercise their
right of assembly and to engage in collective bargaining, but in
the long run the greatest factor that pushes up wages are not strikes,
but the existence of lots of thriving, competing, prospering businesses
in a free market that are creating well-paying jobs. Competition
for talent pulls up wages more effectively than they are pushed
up by strikes. Similarly, in the long run the best guarantee of
liberty is not the willingness of a centralized government to honor
its moral obligation to uphold the Bill of Rights, but the ease
in which disgruntled citizens can leave to go to another countries
that offer better terms. This is what Dr. Ralph Raico calls the
"right of exit" in his lectures and what he feels encouraged
relative liberty and prosperity amidst many European countries such
as Germany, France, and Italy in the late Middle Ages which were
divided into dozens of prinicipalities and smaller states. This
was also one reason why ancient Greece was divided into many city
states.. Americans would have more exit options to deter oppressive
government if there were dozens of countries that spoke English
with similar cultures and traditions competing with each other in
North America than if all Americans are subservient to one centralized
government.

First, the perpetrator who designs the
fraud and then executes it is subsequently hailed by the victims
as a hero, a genius, and indispensable to their own well-being.

Madison is universally heralded as the father of
the Constitution. This is an accurate assessment of his role. From
the Annapolis Convention of 1786, which called for the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, which (1) closed its doors to the public and
the press, (2) did not amend but instead replaced the Articles,
in specific violation of the instructions officially given by several
state legislatures to their attendees; (3) unconstitutionally (Articles
of Confederation) ratified the illegal document in 1787–88,
Madison was there, running the show. Everyone knew it at the time.

Patrick Henry boycotted
the Constitutional convention, claiming "I smelt a rat in Philadelphia."
His speech "A Wrong Step Now and the Republic Will Be Lost
Forever" came close to persuading the Virginia legislature
not to ratify the Constitution. In his speech he claimed that there
was nothing so wrong going on in America that the country required
the new agreement. The following are extracts where he condemned
the Constitution point blank:

...who authorised them to speak the language of,
We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics,
and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents
of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government
of the people of all the States...

...This Constitution is said to have beautiful features, but when
I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly
frightful; among other deformities, it has an awful squinting --
it squints towards monarchy; and does not this raise indignation
in the breast of every true American? Your President may easily
become king; your senate is so imperfectly constructed that your
dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority;
and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this
government, although horribly defective: where are your checks in
this government? Your strong holds will be in the hands of your
enemies.

Yes indeed, where is a Congress that can stand up to the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that recently gave us the
Larry Franklin spy scandal, or restrain King George Bush if he wants
to invade one or two or ten or fifty more countries on bogus WMD
charges like his invasion of Iraq? Actually the problems with the
Constitution became manifest long before today's woes. According
to one Mises Institute lecturer, Patrick Henry predicted that if
the Constitution was ratified, Viginina would be invaded by Northerners
within sixty years. He was off by ten years.

Many libertarians believe that when the states gave up their rights
to exclusivly control their own currencies, control their own militaries,
control their own borders, and make seperate foreign agreements,
they were no longer effectively real states any more. They had been
reduced to mere provinces. The "U.S. Constitution" is
actually a dishonest title. It should really read "The United
Provinces Constitution" of the "United Provinces of America."

Ironically, back in the 1750's and 1760's, many colonies such as
Pennsylvnia and Massachusetts had effectively acted like states.
After the Constitution of 1787, these "states" had effectively
been reduced back to colonies again --of the Federal Government.

In his book The End of Kings: A History
of Republics and Republicans, William Everdell observes
that during the colonial era Americans had some of the best and
most efficient governments they ever experienced in their history.
Each colony, which later called itself a state, had run itself perfectly
well for nearly a hundred years prior to the American Revolution,
and showed every indication of being able to continue to run themselves
for another hundred or two hundred years even without the existence
of a helping hand from the British Monarchy and Parliament or a
U.S. Government. Everdell points out that the colonial legislatures
frequently had limited terms, and there was a higher percentage
of successful business people and other community leaders relative
to the population who directly participated in the legislative process
than at any other time in American history. Since participation
and voting was restricted to land-owning white males, the quality
of government was significantly more serious, honest, responsible,
business-like, and efficient compared to what we have today.

In addition, each of the states was hardly bereft
of talent to provide their own political guidence; in fact many
Founding Fathers were instrumental in creating Constitutions for
their own states long before the U.S. Constitution was created.
By the end of the War for Independence, John Adams had already created
a Constitution for Massachusetts, Thomas Jefferson helped create
a Constitution for Virginia, and Benjamin Franklin had a hand in
creating a Constitution for Pennsylvania.

In my discussion of the merits of decentralization in my "Reconciling
Opposing Ideologies" section I explain why breaking a country
apart into lots of little countries does not necessarily lead to
more wars and more killing in the long run. I mention historical
examples where fragmentation has resulted in long periods of relative
peace. I also mention Dr. Hans Hermann Hoppe's argument that smaller
countries are better at providing liberty and prosperity, as well
as Dr. Ralph Raico's argument that more countries increase opportunties
for what he calls the invaluable "right of exit," which
in turn provide a very powerful deterrant to tyranny. Last, but
not least, I have discussed Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's argument that
free enterprise methods that involved collecting tolls to build
roads were vastly more effective in the 19th century than government-subsidized
public works operations. Throughout most of the 19th century there
was no income tax, and governments raised their revenues from relatively
modest tarrifs as well as proceeds from land sales.

Therefore, when states had more soverignty rights under the Articles
of Confederation, which included setting up checkpoints and collecting
tolls and tarrifs along their borders with each other, that may
have been a much better system all-considered than what we got in
1787. Today, with Federal income taxes, state income taxes (in copycat
with Federal tax monopoly privileges), excise sales taxes, and other
taxes --hidden and unhidden-- that climb over 40% of our earnings,
we pay a pretty stiff price to keep the pedal to the metal on the
Interstate going from one state to another. If it will save us from
paying Federal and state income taxes, I will happily brake for
Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Idaho, and all other states.

There are two other really critical issues involving perversion
of popular soverignty concepts in American history that need to
be addressed from a libertarian racial nationalist perspective.

The first issue involves the failure of states to make a more strenuous
effort to racially and ethnically define themselves. After all,
if Israel can define itself as a Jewish state, why cannot an American
state define itself as being Nordic, Celtic, some Nordic-Celtic
combo, some Nordic-Celtic-Alpine-Mediterranean combo, generalized
white, or whatever? While Benjamin Franklin made an effort to exclude
Jews in the Constitution, as noted in the Franklin prophecy, and
the immigration act of 1792 specifically limited immigration to
Northern Europeans, many rightists felt that next go around (after
the U.S. Government collapses in a hyperinflationary spiral, Mestizos
pull southern California out of the union, and the states are left
to go figure on their own) new constitutional language for whatever
emerges from the rubble is going to have to really be explicit to
try to avoid another 1965 Immigration Reform act fiasco.

The second issue involves the lack of clear language in the Constitution
that favors secession. In my earlier discussion, I talk about how
many corporations have successfully used "spin offs" as
part of their business plan, and how the UK successfully used a
de facto spin off policy with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
The lack of a clearly defined secession program created room for
the fiction advocated by Abraham Lincoln that the Federal governemnt
created the states, rather than the other way around. He used this
as a justification to invade the South.

In the peace treaty that ended the American War of Independence,
the King of England recognized each state as a separate entity.
Language of that era often referred to these united States
rather than the United States. Obviously the states pre-existed
the Federal government when they were joined by the Articles of
Confederation, therefore the Federal government did not create them.

However, many libertarians point out that the Western expansion,
to include the Louisiana purchase, seduced Americans as well as
the Federal Government with dreams of land empire. Teddy Roosevelt
points out that while private settlers and frontiersmen acquired
Tennessee and Kentucky, much of the territory north of the Ohio
River was initially cleared of Indians by Federal troops. Then the
Federal Government presented major portion of the Louisiana Purchase
territories as another "gift" to American settlers.

These "gifts" of land and protection services later came
with Lincoln's political strings attached. Somehow all of this meant
the Federal government "created" these states. This in
turn supposedly created some kind of indivisible bond of obligation.
Somehow people were no longer allowed to rebel no matter how centralized
and tyrannical the government might become.

One can easily see how a growing land empire, bought or conquored
by an ever expanding Federal government, which increasingly adopted
a posture of condescending obligation towards its citizens, created
a climate destructive to limited republicanism and individual liberty.
I think that one could also see how one of the best ways to try
to halt this trend would be to organize some Western territories
to show some real independence from the central government. One
can only wonder if this was a primary motive of Aaron Burr, an anti-Federalist
who had served as Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, when he
got charged with treasonous conspiracy as he toured the West after
he dueled and killed America's premiere central banking advocate
Alexander Hamilton..

Other libertarian racial nationalist themes

Modern liberal historians have also thrown down the memory hole
a significant part of the abolitionist and organized labor movements
of the mid to late 1800's that explicitly defended white genetic
interests in addition to white working class interests, while rejecting
racial "equality." These people tended to view the slavery
issue as a part of a much larger racial issue that involved defending
white society against alien infiltrators into their living space,
while at the same time creating a climate of equal justice and equal
opportunity among fellow whites. The people who held these views
tended to be white middle class and working class people, and they
were very numerous in all areas of the country, to include the South
and West.

A perfect example regarding these types of "abolitionists"
comes from the Autobiography of Buffalo Bill.
In the late 1850's Buffalo Bill's father got on a soap box and said,
"Gentlemen, I voted that it [Kansas] should be a white state
--that negroes, whether free or slave, should never be allowed to
locate within its limits; and, gentlemen, I say to you now, and
I say it boldly, that I propose to exert all my power in making
Kansas the same kind of state as Iowa. I believe in letting slavery
remain as it now exists, and I shall always oppose its further extension.
These are my sentiments, gentlemen, and let me tell you--"

At that point in the speech, a pro-slavery man (meaning he wanted
to extend slavery into new Western territories) pulled out a knife
and stabbed Buffalo Bill's father. Terribly wounded, his father
fled pro-slavery partisans who tried to hunt him down. He later
fought for the Union. Buffalo Bill's father did not believe that
Negro's are equal to whites, and he did not want Negroes in white
territory, but he nevertheless fought for the Union. In fact, in
that era, this sentiment was codified into law in many Union states.
For example, both free Negroes as well as slaves were prohibited
by law from entering the states of Illinois and Oregon in the 1850's.

Conversely, in the South there existed quite a few anti-slavery
societies with their own unique agenda. Many Southern middle class
whites resented the way slaveholders could potentially infiltrate
their occupations and distort the economy. They wanted to simultaneously
free blacks and repatriate them to Africa, which has already been
done on a small scale when blacks were sent to Liberia.

Interestingly, a number of Union Generals had similar views. General
Sherman said that he was fighting to preserve the union, and not
to overturn slavery. Quite a few of the white "abolitionists"
were scared of giving Negroes equal rights and leaving them embedded
in white society, believing that blacks are not only a more backward
and primitive race that could only dumb down the quality of democracy,
but also for fear of some kind of repetition of the French Revolution
in Haiti, where the freed black population ended up killing off
all the white people. Dr. Lothrop Stoddard describes that horror
in his book The French Revolution in Santo Domingo.
Dr. David Duke discusses scientific evidence regarding racial differences
in his book My Awakening.

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, in his book The Real Lincoln,
talks about how Lincoln played to these sentiments. As a lawyer,
Lincoln once served a Kentucky slaveholder who sued to have his
runaway slave returned from Illinois. Just before the outbreak of
the Civil War, Lincoln also supported the original 13th amendment,
which guaranteed slavery in the South. This was meant as a sop to
the South to prevent secession. Lincoln openly stated that he was
more interested in the tarriff issue than the slavery issue. He
also stated that his career was focused on the "Whig"
agenda --which meant protectionist tarrifs, a central bank, and
internal improvements-- and which had nothing to do with slavery
or racial issue.

In addition to racially conscious whites who existed on both sides
of the Mason Dixon line in the abolitionist movements, they also
existed in late 19th century organized labor and socialist movements.
For example, in the late 1800's Dennis Kearney led a successful
organized labor effort to evict incoming Oriental labor and keep
California white. Similar efforts wre successful in Western Canada,
keeping the West Coast looking mostly European until the 1960's-1970's.
Jack London was a prime example of a major champion of socialist
revolution who simultaneously embarrassed many members of the world
socialist movement with his explicit call to protect white racial
interests.

Incidentally, as another interesting twist regarding organized
labor, most Americans have this image in their minds that the old
South African apartheid system was started by racist Afrikaners.
According to the late Dr. Murray Rothbard, this is false. Believe
it or not, it was originally started by whites in the South African
Communist party who were concerned that blacks would take their
jobs away from them.

This reinforces the notion that politics can make strange bedfellows,
and sometimes the old labels of "left" and "right"
become way too simplistic. Later the character of the South African
communist party changed dramatically when Jews stepped in and asserted
an anti-white, multi-racial agenda. In more recent times, Jewish
communist Joe Slovo served as the brains and chief organizer of
the South African communist party that provided a critical platform
for Nelson Mandela. The Jewish financier Harry Oppenheimer, whose
financial interests (informally dubbed "the Octopus")
have controlled much of the South African economy, provided support
for these Marxists, demonstrating once again the superficiality
of the old "left" and "right" political labels.
Many U.S. Christian churches, as well as the U.S. Government with
its boycott of South African goods, also ganged up on apartheid
and white rule.

Too bad that under black rule South Africa today has become one
more black run disaster, with a disintregrating economy and rising
lawlessness. Egalitarian racial theories stand discredited once
again.

English common law

Last, but not least, the English common law deserves
mention for the way it traditionally supported grass roots rights
white interests. The most obvious protection is the trial by jury.
The web
site for western Missouri District courts informs us that: :

...in the Eighteenth Century, Blackstone could commemorate
the institution as part of a ''strong and two-fold barrier . . .
between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown''
because ''the truth of every accusation . . . . [must] be confirmed
by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors
indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion.'' The right
was guaranteed in the constitutions of the original 13 States, was
guaranteed in the body of the Constitution and in the Sixth Amendment,
and the constitution of every State entering the Union thereafter
in one form or another protected the right to jury trial in criminal
cases. ''Those who emigrated to this country from England brought
with them this great privilege 'as their birthright and inheritance,
as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and
interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary
power.'''

We also learn from this web
site that the usual Nordic, Celtic, and other white suspects
have been involved in the practice of Grand Juries since ancient
times:

A Grand Jury derives its name from the fact that it usually has
a greater number of jurors than a trial (petit) jury. One of the
earliest concepts of Grand Juries dates back to early Greece where
the Athenians used an accusatory body. In early Briton, the Saxons
also used something similar to a Grand Jury System. During the years
978 to 1016, one of the Dooms (laws) stated that for each 100 men,
12 were to be named to act as an accusing body. They were cautioned
"not to accuse an innocent man or spare a guilty one."

The Grand Jury can also be traced to the time of
the Norman conquest of England in 1066. There is evidence that the
courts of that time summoned a body of sworn neighbors to present
crimes that had come to their knowledge. Since the members of that
accusing jury were selected from small jurisdictions, it was natural
that they could present accusations based on their personal knowledge.

Historians agree that the Assize [court session
or assembly] of Clarendon in 1166 provided the ground work for our
present Grand Jury system. During the reign of Henry II (1154-1189),
to regain for the crown the powers usurped by Thomas Becket, Chancellor
of England, 12 "good and lawful men" in each village were
assembled to reveal the names of those suspected of crimes. It was
during this same period that juries were divided into two types,
civil and criminal, with the development of each influencing the
other.

Thre are many other examples of grass roots protection in the common
law. Two which particularly come to mind are habeas corpus and jury
nullification. The writs of Habeas
Corpus may be issued by a judge to order a prisoner to be brought
before the court. This is designed to protect against arbitrary
imprisonment. The doctrine of jury
nullification enables a jury to refuse to render a verdict regardless
of the weight of evidence. This provides protection against unjust
laws.

While this system provides many safeguards against tyranny, it presumes
a relatively libertarian, homogeneous white society similar to Merrie
Olde England with a fairly low crime rate and relatively good relations
between the citizenry and their police. It does not work particularly
well when you introduce black populations with a crime rate on the
order of magnitude of ten to fifty times the white average. Nor
is it particularly efficient in handling Jewish, Sicilian, Chinese,
Mexican, Vietnamese and other mafias who are often better armed
than the police, are often loaded with drug money, and often have
the ability to buy off judges and ruthlessly assassinate witnesses.

Quite a lot has been been written about the continuing perversion
and corruption of our legal justice system in multi-racial, multi-cultural,
blank check pro-Zionist America away from the chivalrous, liberatarian,
equitable, and fact-based, rationalistic spirit of the traditional
Anglo-Saxon system. One good source of insights are the articles
archives of pro-white activist lawyer Edgar Steele at www.conspiracypenpal.com,
whose book Defensive Racism discusses
legal issues from the perspective of protecting white genetic interests.
I have also enjoyed listening to the lecture series on the tragic
and twisted tax law history of America by Charles Adams archived
at mises.org

The continuing "greedy white trash" problem
in America

ElsewhereI have mentioned Nordic republican experiments, the necesity
for "republican virtue," and how an Icelander once referred
to his fellow Nordics as "An egalitarian people with aristocratic
tendencies." The term "aristocratic" implies a certain
nobility of character, and willingness to sacrifice on principle
for the common good.

For a republican system to work over the long run, you need a business
and financial elite that is fiercely loyal towards protecting the
genetic interests of the general population. This implies supporting
the indigenous culture and folkways that helps the middle class
maintain its cohesion and identity and ability to protect itself
from dynamic intruders.

Admittedly, America's pioneers were basically tough, honest, and
courageous people. I think this one reason why Thomas Jefferson
admired American farmers and pioneers. He was also repelled at the
decadence of many European aristocracies.

However, on an ideological level, it is also clear that Americans
have had serious problems institutionalizing their grass virtues
on a broader social level, and in dealing with sophisticated threats.
Among other things, their Jewish-invented Christian religion hurt
their ability to understand the alien nature of Jewish infiltration.
Their lack of a deep sense of indigenous Indo-European ancestral
culture made them more easy to manipulate by alien culture distorters.

Generaly speaking, America has had too many people in its business
strata out to get rich at all costs, even if it means importing
alien peoples that create toxic effects for future generations.
The slavery problem in the early 1800's, the Jewish domination of
our media and central bank starting in the early 20th century, and
the massive Third World immigration problem we face today are all
symptoms of a much deeper problem than any of the aforementioned
issues in isolation; to put it bluntly, we have too many white American
businessmen and other wealthy, influential people who for all intents
and purposes are nothing more than "greedy white trash."
They are very short-term oriented. They are all too willing to settle
for any hype story that can score them quick bucks. They are out
to get the cheapest labor possible regardless of the long term social
consequences, whether it involved slaves in the 1800's or illegal
immigrants from Mexico today.

Jewish power in America is both a cause and effect. For the past
several thousand years the Jews have been despised as one of the
most greedy and deceitful of all races of mankind everywhere they
have gone in the world. However, Jews could never become so powerful
in America were it not for the fact that a large percentage of the
white leadership strata share so many of their characteristics.
The real white trash in America are not in trailer parks in Appalachia
--in fact a lot of those folks are actually very honest and hard-working
people-- but rather they sport three piece suits, wear Ivy League
rings, and work out of offices of major investment banks and top
corporations where they front for the Jews and their New World Order
gentile collaborators.

A society that is this greedy simply cannot survive. This is a major
reason why America is heading for the rocks.

Summmary remarks on libertarian racial nationalism

One of the biggest complaints about conservatives in America today
is that the overwhelming majority of them are too narrowly focused
on just a few issues. They tend to miss the broader picture.

Back when I went through basic military officer training, one of
the zillion acronyms thrown at us was MOOSE
MUSS for the principles of war. This acronym stands for Mass,
Offensive, Objective, Surprise, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity
of Command, Security, and Simplicity. In this case, I am interested
in the principle of the objective, namely the idea that if our goals
are not realistically defined and comprehensive enough, we will
fail to secure victory and may in fact have the tables turned against
us by cunning and determined enemies who may ultimately destroy
us.

The main objective in libertarian racial nationalism is to secure
for ones own people all the critical elements of soverignty. In
the case of whites, this necessarily includes protecting white genetic
interests. When the local or national government starts working
against our full array of soverignty powers, we must stay focused
on restoring the full menu until the full menu has in fact been
restored. The proof of the pudding that "kosher conservatism"
does not work, that is, an approach that selectively focuses on
certain limited "conservative" issues while otherwise
opposing the open defense of white genetic interests, is found in
the plain fact that America no longer works. With its exploding
debt and wildly inflating money supply; with its serious structural
deficiency in manufacturing, with its overseas military adventurism
that place Jewish interests ahead of American interests, and with
its out of control Third World immigration that is loading American
society with ticking time bombs of social strife everywhere, America
is headed towards complete economic and social disaster. This dog
don't hunt no more.

No one in history has ever operated a sustainable conservative
movement that ignored explicit defense of their own genetic interests.
This may sound rude and crude and shocking to certain political
correctness-brainwashed folks, but that is just the way it is. And,
no John Birch, this is not "collectivism." It is, however,
an iron law of nature.

We must also always mend our fences on the grass roots level regarding
all the ethic, racial, cultural, and religious raw sinews of nationalism.
This includes finding ways to help provide mutual economic support
for like-minded people (what I call "personal economic nationalism.")

Lastly, if some higher level of government gets highjacked by hostile
interests and starts working against us, we have to work that much
harder to recreate a "nation within a nation" on a local
level that supports our interests.

On the other hand, even if we have a good government that is on
our side, we really need to keep mending our fences on a local level
anyway. This is no different than the way someone who wants to stay
healthy has to eat right and exercise every day whether or not he
is in good shape or is out of shape. It just makes good sense.

...And, incidentally, this is the way it has always been over the
last few hundred thousand years. This probably goes back as far
as our hominid ancestors who first developed enough cerebral and
frontal lobe capacity to incorporate syntax into their language.